Time chooses for us. Honor, what did it mean 2000 years ago, what does it mean today? We don't think killing a person for rape is honorable anymore,
to lock them up is honorable. Time changes definitions.

Time chooses for us. Honor, what did it mean 2000 years ago, what does it mean today? We don't think killing a person for rape is honorable anymore,
to lock them up is honorable. Time changes definitions.

correct
because 2k years ago we all agreed to follow a specific definition of it.
its funny cause we made it all up. we made up honor. we made up the definition.
2k years from now it will not mean what it does now

This is why I say without words, Satan wouldn't be a bother to us, deciete wouldn't be a problem & technology would have not happened. Words were are
first trait of deciete, then came the fun stuff. Words are what the Eden's apple was. Unless you can think of something that was deceitful to us
before words & will last longer than words?

We cant think without words, it's just called feeling. Thinking is using words in the head, without words it would just be feeling. I just walked
inside & the first thing I heard on the TV was body language. Don't let me forget body language, becuase that has to mean something when it comes to
language arts.

Which is why I say words are the first step to tech. & we are on the path to feeling less. That is Satan's want, to make us feel less. Without
feeling, do we have any power on earth? Or just in heaven?

Well cannibalism is natural for sure; it happens a lot in nature, right? If we decide that cannibalism is unnatural then any kind of immoral
act should be unnatural too, like a cat playing with a mouse before killing it for example -- is that also unnatural? And I'd say rape
qualifies for this too, and also incest, even though as far as I know they are less common. I bet there have been groups of humans or animals
who have resorted to incest, and if they did not then their line would have died out. So, would that have been more natural?

Murder is a specific form of killing, basically it's killing without social sanction or without good reason, and also a certain degree of
premeditation is implied, so it's not just killing in a flash of anger or in self-defense. So I think the answer to this question is inconclusive;
whether or not a killing is natural can't depend on any law or social convention, I think. We have to look for a deeper definition for "natural" than
laws or social mores, otherwise its all arbitrary. (I mean, is the whole concept of murder even natural? Animals don't have murder I think.)

Bestiality is a human act of having sex with an animal. To me this is the most unnatural one so far, hard to argue for it being natural, except
by saying that animals sometimes have sex with the wrong animals too. And of course really everything is natural because everything is part of nature.
For example, is a black hole unnatural? A black hole is pretty unnatural in my opinion. I'd say bestiality is more natural than a black hole. But
still a black hole obeys the laws of nature (assuming the theories aren't all wrong somehow). Unless nature only consists of tigers and trees and
stuff like that. But that's a pretty narrow definition.

Obviously we could take natural to mean something like "good for us" or "healthy" or "strengthens the species". Then bestiality could be unnatural
because it doesn't produce children, you can't get consent from an animal, animals aren't designed to have sex with humans, etc. But if we take these
arguments at face value and apply them fairly to all human activity, then things like contraception, eating meat or masturbation would also be
unnatural. So, I think bestiality is wrong but I'm not sure if it's unnatural.

Adjustable rate mortgages I'd say are as natural as any cultural meme, like a religious practice or the idea of murder. I guess it's a good
candidate for being unnatural, for sure. Genetically modified food is absolutely natural though. It's just changes in DNA; what could be more
natural than that? It doesn't matter if a human being is doing it intentionally or not. This is a very interesting one, though. Is selective breeding
natural?

Having a soul is surely also natural, if it only happens to higher forms of life, like humans or dogs. Otherwise we could say lobsters are
unnatural compared to bacteria, right? And bacteria are unnatural compared to viruses, and viruses compared to rocks or whatever. I mean, I have to
say that if people have souls then dogs do as well, and then the difference between a dog and some slightly dumber animal isn't that big either. BUT;
the soul itself is unnatural! It is not part of nature, as far as I can tell, it's external somehow.

As for prayer, I don't think the uniqueness is enough to make it unnatural.

Of it's all semantics in a way, just depends on how we define 'nature', like people have said already. I guess most people use several, contradictory
definitions.

EDIT: I mean, some of these are harder to prove to be natural because it depends on how you define natural. But some are easier because even by a very
narrow definition they can be said to be natural.

I say do whatever you want, I'm just saying to whoever reads my posts are longer able to say, father forgive me for I know not what I do. Know what
that means? I think we should just live in the woods naked with animals & survive (naturally) lol. So illegal though to live with god. In super
powerful countries that go to thrid world countries, take their food cause they can travel worldwide to hunt, than profit money from trying to give
back food from the same people they take offs. Lol now that is good business

And if gay people *do* want to procreate and/or raise children but are not attracted to the opposite sex, can you acknowledge that
something is amiss?

i would say some gay people want to procreate because they do

i guess something would be amiss depending on how you think about it. i suppose

is it amiss because it might not make sense to some/most based on todays acceptable behavior?

maybe its not amiss at all?

the only requirements for conception is the sperm and the egg. attraction to the person you are procreating with is not a requirement.
only having sex with the opposite is not a requirement either.

peoples desires change over time too.
maybe for the first 30 years of john doe gay man he does not want to procreate. has sex for pleasure with other men.
then something changes. could be a million things.
now he has sex with a women.

still gay. still not attracted to the woman. still having sex. still procreating

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i read that last night and i have been thinking about it.

if it is possible then how can it be unnatural?

i am talking from a biological perspective.
we see this argument a lot when it comes to homosexuality. we hear that is goes against what god says and that it does not happen in the animal
kingdom so it is not natural and wrong..

but if its possible then isnt it natural?
take belief systems and myths out of it and just look it it biologically... why is it wrong?

Be careful when you talk about cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

There are some of those cases that are conflated with the two male animals wanting to have sex with each other when that's really not what's taking
place. I know people often talk about sneaker males in the cichlid kingdom for example as an example of gay fish.

But ...

I've kept many cichlids in my time, including having and directly observing sneaker behavior. And it's not what people think of as gay behavior.

What happens is that you have a dominate male who shows off and beats the crap out of the other male. The sub-dominant male would ordinarily leave if
possible and establish his own turf. His other alternative is to adopt female color and behavior to avoid getting killed, but that doesn't stop him
from wanting to breed. So when the dominant male is courting/spawning with a female, he sneaks in on the action acting as the female himself. All
three fish participate and both males get a shot at fertilizing the female's eggs, so what he's really doing isn't trying to breed with the male like
a gay fish, but instead trying to breed with the female himself like a hetero male. He's just very beta.

If the dominant male ever dies, the once "gay" fish colors right up and takes over like an alpha. No more acting like a gay fish!

So some of the reports of widespread gay behavior are just anthropomorphizing.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.